SEOUL: While it only turns into a handsome prince in fairy tales, the homely bullfrog may harbor a valuable anti-aging substance for humans, South Korean researchers say.

Read rest of this story here:
The Manila Times Internet Edition

Bookmark this to:

Xiang Yu was a Chinese general in the third century B.C. who took his troops across the Yangtze River into enemy territory and performed an experiment in decision making. He crushed his troops’ cooking pots and burned their ships.

He explained this was to focus them on moving forward — a motivational speech that was not appreciated by many of the soldiers watching their retreat option go up in flames. But General Xiang Yu would be vindicated, both on the battlefield and in the annals of social science research.

He is one of the role models in Dan Ariely’s new book, “Predictably Irrational,” an entertaining look at human foibles like the penchant for keeping too many options open. General Xiang Yu was a rare exception to the norm, a warrior who conquered by being unpredictably rational.

Most people can’t make such a painful choice, not even the students at a bastion of rationality like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where Dr. Ariely is a professor of behavioral economics. In a series of experiments, hundreds of students could not bear to let their options vanish, even though it was obviously a dumb strategy (and they weren’t even asked to burn anything).

The experiments involved a game that eliminated the excuses we usually have for refusing to let go. In the real world, we can always tell ourselves that it’s good to keep options open.

You don’t even know how a camera’s burst-mode flash works, but you persuade yourself to pay for the extra feature just in case. You no longer have anything in common with someone who keeps calling you, but you hate to just zap the relationship.

Your child is exhausted from after-school soccer, ballet and Chinese lessons, but you won’t let her drop the piano lessons. They could come in handy! And who knows? Maybe they will.

In the M.I.T. experiments, the students should have known better. They played a computer game that paid real cash to look for money behind three doors on the screen. (You can play it yourself, without pay, at tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com.) After they opened a door by clicking on it, each subsequent click earned a little money, with the sum varying each time.

As each player went through the 100 allotted clicks, he could switch rooms to search for higher payoffs, but each switch used up a click to open the new door. The best strategy was to quickly check out the three rooms and settle in the one with the highest rewards.

Even after students got the hang of the game by practicing it, they were flummoxed when a new visual feature was introduced. If they stayed out of any room, its door would start shrinking and eventually disappear.

They should have ignored those disappearing doors, but the students couldn’t. They wasted so many clicks rushing back to reopen doors that their earnings dropped 15 percent. Even when the penalties for switching grew stiffer — besides losing a click, the players had to pay a cash fee — the students kept losing money by frantically keeping all their doors open.

Why were they so attached to those doors? The players, like the parents of that overscheduled piano student, would probably say they were just trying to keep future options open. But that’s not the real reason, according to Dr. Ariely and his collaborator in the experiments, Jiwoong Shin, an economist who is now at Yale.

They plumbed the players’ motivations by introducing yet another twist. This time, even if a door vanished from the screen, players could make it reappear whenever they wanted. But even when they knew it would not cost anything to make the door reappear, they still kept frantically trying to prevent doors from vanishing.

Apparently they did not care so much about maintaining flexibility in the future. What really motivated them was the desire to avoid the immediate pain of watching a door close.

“Closing a door on an option is experienced as a loss, and people are willing to pay a price to avoid the emotion of loss,” Dr. Ariely says. In the experiment, the price was easy to measure in lost cash. In life, the costs are less obvious — wasted time, missed opportunities. If you are afraid to drop any project at the office, you pay for it at home.

“We may work more hours at our jobs,” Dr. Ariely writes in his book, “without realizing that the childhood of our sons and daughters is slipping away. Sometimes these doors close too slowly for us to see them vanishing.”

Dr. Ariely, one of the most prolific authors in his field, does not pretend that he is above this problem himself. When he was trying to decide between job offers from M.I.T. and Stanford, he recalls, within a week or two it was clear that he and his family would be more or less equally happy in either place. But he dragged out the process for months because he became so obsessed with weighing the options.

“I’m just as workaholic and prone to errors as anyone else,” he says.. “I have way too many projects, and it would probably be better for me and the academic community if I focused my efforts. But every time I have an idea or someone offers me a chance to collaborate, I hate to give it up.”

So what can be done? One answer, Dr. Ariely said, is to develop more social checks on overbooking. He points to marriage as an example: “In marriage, we create a situation where we promise ourselves not to keep options open. We close doors and announce to others we’ve closed doors.”

Or we can just try to do it on our own. Since conducting the door experiments, Dr. Ariely says, he has made a conscious effort to cancel projects and give away his ideas to colleagues. He urges the rest of us to resign from committees, prune holiday card lists, rethink hobbies and remember the lessons of door closers like Xiang Yu.

If the general’s tactics seem too crude, Dr. Ariely recommends another role model, Rhett Butler, for his supreme moment of unpredictable rationality at the end of his marriage. Scarlett, like the rest of us, can’t bear the pain of giving up an option, but Rhett recognizes the marriage’s futility and closes the door with astonishing elan. Frankly, he doesn’t give a damn.

Bookmark this to:

TUBERCULOSIS TB is a deadly disease. It is the world’s No. 1 cause of death; about 3 million persons die of TB every year. It is one of the 10 top killer diseases in the Philippines; 75 Filipinos die of TB every day.

Appalled by tremendous loss every year of Filipino life due to tuberculosis, several civic-minded persons in Manila led by Eleanor Franklin Egan, founded the Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc. PTSI on July 29, 1910. It started with five clinics and 20 shacks at the Santol TB Sanitarium. It gradually expanded its activities to 40 provinces in the country with the Quezon Institute as its biggest and well-known unit.

A non-stock, non-profit organization, PTSI has pursued its commitment to prevent, treat, and control tuberculosis in the country. Governed by a distinguished board of directors, its vision is to work ceaselessly for TB control in the country. Its mission is to complement the government’s national TB control program by intensifying research and development, and networking with partner agencies and individuals in TB control in the Philippines.

Bookmark this to:

Wars, disasters take toll
on Pinoys’ mental health

Armed conflict, natural disasters and large-scale labor migration are causing mental disorders for up to a fifth of Filipino adults, psychiatrists said Friday.

Up to 20 percent of adults suffer from some form of mental disorder, with 10 to 15 percent of children suffering from mental problems, according to the Philippine Psychiatric Association.

Mental disability is a “huge public health challenge” in the Philippines since many of its citizens are exposed to various “extreme life experiences,” said Yolanda Oliveros, director of the health department’s National Center for Disease Prevention and Control.

“We’ve tried to identify the components that could influence the mental status of a person and we found that life experiences such as disasters and armed conflict” affect a person’s state of mind, Oliveros told an annual convention of the country’s psychiatrists.

Bookmark this to:

Page one of four – To read the rest of the story please click the link immediately above this and go to the Psychology Today article.

As an anthropologist, I have long been captivated by one of the most striking characteristics of our species: We form enduring pair bonds. The vast majority of other mammals—some 97 percent—do not.

In my previous work I proposed that humanity has evolved three distinct but overlapping brain systems that enable us to fall in love and form long-term emotional connections: the neural systems for the sex drive, romantic love, and attachment. We are all alike in having these three primary brain networks. In other ways, however, each of us is unique. We don’t fall in love with just anyone. We have deep and idiosyncratic preferences. Why do we fall in love with one person rather than another?

There is much evidence that people generally fall in love with those of the same socioeconomic and ethnic background, of roughly the same age, with the same degree of intelligence and level of education, and with a similar sense of humor and grade of attractiveness.

But you can walk into a room of 40 people all from your background, with your level of education, degree of intelligence and good looks, and you don’t fall in love with all of them. “The road of love is narrow,” wrote Kabir, a 15th-century poet of India. “There is only room for one.” How do we form this preference—one that is so crucial to our reproductive future?

Among the myriad forces that sculpt our romantic choices is what I call your “love map,” an unconscious list of qualities you begin to build in childhood. Your mother’s wit and way with words; your father’s interest in politics and tennis; what your siblings like and hate; the values of your friends and teachers; what you see on television. All your childhood (and adult) experiences shape and reshape your template of the ideal romantic partner.

By the teenage years, each of us has constructed an idiosyncratic catalog of traits, values, aptitudes, and mannerisms that appeal to us. Then, when the timing is right and we meet a person who registers on our love map, a cascade of brain chemicals is triggered that tells us with euphoric certainty that we have found the one.

But I have come to believe that there’s more to mate choice than your childhood, your background, your values, and your degree of good looks. These variables act in tandem with a silent partner: your biology. What sparked my thinking on this was a classic study now commonly known as the sweaty T-shirt experiment.

Women are unconsciously attracted to men with a different immune system; they do it by smell. If you are attracted to someone whose immune system is different from yours, why wouldn’t you also be attracted to those with other genetic differences? Mates with distinctly different genetic profiles would produce more genetically varied young.

It is this line of logic and investigation that I embarked on two years ago. Psychologists have searched exhaustively to find personality factors that play a role in romantic attraction. Do opposites attract? Or is similarity the elixir of love? No consistent patterns emerge. Extroverts don’t always fall for extroverts, for example—or for introverts. With some traits, people gravitate to those who are similar; in others, they prefer individuals who complement them. Psychologists report a temptation to throw in the towel on how personality influences partner selection.

Bookmark this to:

Reviewed by: John M. Grohol, Psy.D.
on July 25, 2007 at 10:20 am

Scottish biologists report they have developed man-made compounds capable of blocking nerve cell interactions known to lead to the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease.

The researchers believe this finding shows that it may be possible to reverse some of the signs associated with Alzheimer’s.

The biologists at the University of St Andrews found the blocking of nerve cell interactions lead to a successful reversal of the progression of the disease and prevention of the death of brain cells among laboratory animals.

After the procedure the targeted mice displayed improved memory and learning ability overcoming prior brain damage.

The discovery that Alzheimer’s is caused by a toxic protein which kills off nerve cells in the brains of sufferers, has led to the search for a compound which can block or reduce the debilitating interaction.

Alzheimer’s is linked to the build up of amyloid protein which eventually forms ’senile plaques’. The amyloid protein inflicts damage by interacting with an enzyme called ABAD Amyloid Beta Alcohol Dehydrogenase and releasing toxic substances which kill brain cells.

Dr Frank Gunn-Moore’s team, from the University of St Andrews in collaboration with researchers in the US, initially focused on developing the three-dimensional shape of ABAD and understanding how amyloid attaches itself to the structure.

Dr Gunn-Moore, a senior lecturer at the University’s School of Biology said, “Alzheimer’s sufferers produce too much amyloid and ABAD in their brains. Based on our knowledge of ABAD, we produced an inhibitor that can prevent amyloid attaching to it in a living model. We have shown that it is possible to reverse some of the signs associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

“The work is now being continued to try and refine the inhibitor into a potential drug. Our research holds a possible key for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, particularly in its early stages.”

Source: University of St Andrews

Bookmark this to:

Schearf report – Download (MP3) 597K
Listen to Schearf report

China has shut down two companies for exporting tainted pet food ingredients believed responsible for poisoning hundreds of dogs and cats in North America. China has been defending itself against accusations of poor quality controls after a series of revelations that some exports were unsafe. As Daniel Schearf reports from Beijing, Chinese officials say lax U.S. customs inspections are also to blame.

A senior quality inspection official Friday said two Chinese companies had their business licenses revoked after an investigation revealed they added the toxic chemical melamine to wheat and rice protein used to make pet food in North America.

Melamine is high in nitrogen and can make products it is added to appear higher in protein than they actually are. But it is also poisonous and was likely the cause of hundreds of pet deaths earlier this year in the United States and Canada.

Li Changjiang

Li Changjiang, the director of China’s General Administration of Quality, Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine says the companies were able to evade quality controls by mislabeling the products.

“According to our laws, chemical ingredients are not subject to inspection,” Li explained. “So, they were not inspected. These companies were responsible because they were not supposed to pass off a chemical ingredient as a product for export. Therefore, we severely punished these enterprises.”

The quality inspection agency said the powerful Public Security Bureau has started an investigation and arrested “major personnel” in charge.

The pet deaths were followed by discoveries in several countries of tainted Chinese toothpaste, fish, and children’s toys, sparking international concern about Chinese exports.

The U.S. has refused farmed fish and seafood imports from China after shipments were found to be contaminated with drugs banned in the U.S.

Li said those tainted shipments came from illegal fish farms. He said U.S. customs were also at fault because, unlike the European Union and Japan, the U.S. does not require exporters to provide official certificates of health.

“They allow all products to be exported and then conduct random tests in ports,” Li said. “This makes it easy for some illegal enterprises’ food products that do not meet U.S. standards to enter the U.S. market.”

Li defended Chinese food products. He said large and medium sized food manufacturers with high standards made up 90 percent of the market. He vowed to crack down on China’s numerous small food manufacturers scattered around the country, which he blamed for most food safety problems.

Chinese officials have chastised foreign media for giving Chinese products a bad name. Li said U.S. media reports “untruthfully” linked poor quality Chinese-made tires to a fatal car accident, leading to a recall of nearly half a million tires. Chinese officials have concluded misuse of the tires was the real cause of the accident.

Bookmark this to:

By:Hara Estroff Marano

Friendship is a lot like food. We need it to survive. What is more, we seem to have a basic drive for it. Psychologists find that human beings have fundamental need for inclusion in group life and for close relationships. We are truly social animals.

The upshot is, we function best when this social need is met. It is easier to stay motivated, to meet the varied challenges of life.

In fact, evidence has been growing that when our need for social relationships is not met, we fall apart mentally and even physically. There are effects on the brain and on the body. Some effects work subtly, through the exposure of multiple body systems to excess amounts of stress hormones. Yet the effects are distinct enough to be measured over time, so that unmet social needs take a serious toll on health, eroding our arteries, creating high blood pressure, and even undermining learning and memory.

A lack of close friends and a dearth of broader social contact generally bring the emotional discomfort or distress known as loneliness. It begins with an awareness of a deficiency of relationships. This cognitive awareness plays through our brain with an emotional soundtrack. It makes us sad. We might feel an emptiness. We may be filled with a longing for contact. We feel isolated, distanced from others, deprived. These feelings tear away at our emotional well-being.

Despite the negative effects of loneliness, it can hardly be considered abnormal. It is a most normal feeling. Everyone feels lonely sometimes—after a break-up with a friend or lover, when we move to a new place, when we are excluded from some social gathering.

Chronic loneliness is something else entirely. It is one of the surest markers in existence for maladjustment.

In children, it leads to all kinds of problems. Failure to be socially connected to peers is the real reason behind most school dropouts. It sets in motion a course on which children spin their way to outcast status and develop delinquency and other forms of antisocial behavior.

In adults, loneliness is a major precipitant of depression and alcoholism. And it increasingly appears to be the cause of a range of medical problems, some of which take decades to show up.

Psychologist John Cacioppo of the University of Chicago has been tracking the effects of loneliness. He performed a series of novel studies and reported that loneliness works in some surprising ways to compromise health.

• Perhaps most astonishing, in a survey he conducted, doctors themselves confided that they provide better or more complete medical care to patients who have supportive families and are not socially isolated.
• Living alone increases the risk of suicide for young and old alike.
• Lonely individuals report higher levels of perceived stress even when exposed to the same stressors as non-lonely people, and even when they are relaxing.
• The social interaction lonely people do have are not as positive as those of other people, hence the relationships they have do not buffer them from stress as relationships normally do.
• Loneliness raises levels of circulating stress hormones and levels of blood pressure. It undermines regulation of the circulatory system so that the heart muscle works harder and the blood vessels are subject to damage by blood flow turbulence.
• Loneliness destroys the quality and efficiency of sleep, so that it is less restorative, both physically and psychologically. They wake up more at night and spend less time in bed actually sleeping than do the nonlonely.

Loneliness, Cacioppo concludes, sets in motion a variety of “slowly unfolding pathophysiological processes.” The net result is that the lonely experience higher levels of cumulative wear and tear.

In other words, we are built for social contact. There are serious—life-threatening—consequences when we don’t get enough. We can’t stay on track mentally. And we are compromised physically. Social skills are crucial for your health.

Read Here 

Bookmark this to:

Scientists say they have discovered a gene responsible for increasing a person’s likelihood of contracting type 1 diabetes.

In an article published Sunday in the journal Nature, researchers said people with a variation of the gene are as much as 50 percent more likely to suffer from type 1 diabetes.

That sort of diabetes is also called juvenile diabetes because it is often diagnosed in childhood or early adulthood.

Researchers say the ability to forecast a vulnerability to diabetes would allow doctors to intervene in time to lessen its impact on patients.

Type 1 diabetes is an incurable disease in which the body destroys its cells which produce insulin, a hormone that regulates blood glucose.

Those with the disease have a higher risk of heart disease, kidney failure, blindness and other medical problems.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP and Reuters.

VOA 

Bookmark this to: